Discussion in 'London and the South East' started by Orang Utan, Nov 2, 2005.
No we won't
The BBC, for a start, call both Fulham and Chelsea SW London, as do the Met, and LU.
News reports sometimes do that.
As I said before no one I've ever know since I've lived here has ever called Chelsea or Fulham SW London. BBC and ITV local news have referred to them as West London as well.
Well plenty of people that I've known have, including born and bred Londoners.
The original postcodes were applied given their proximity to The City of London; Chelsea and Fulham are both south west of The City.
But I've lived here 35 years and never come across anyone who was born here thats called Chelsea or Fulham SW London. The only people that would do that are the ones who think that the London Underground map is an accurate representation of London.
Where did I say that I think that the underground map is an accurate representation of London?
I've given you my reason for thinking that it's SW London: the fact that it's south west of the City; I have heard Chelsea and Fulham being called south west and west London by various people. I find it difficult to believe that in 35 years you've only heard it called west London.
You're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours, so let's end this discussion right now.
Thank you. So we've established that the river does not define the cardinal points of the city.
It does though - it defines South London
Fulham is not West London by any stretch of the imagination. South West at best.
Yes it is, and so is Hammersmith and Chiswick while we're at it
You keep changing your mind. You said that the river defines what is north and south; following your argument to its logical conclusion, Hammersmith and Chiswick would be north London.
arrgh, fuck it.
Listen, the way I see it the river offers a good guidance of what is North and South but cannot be applied as a rule because it wouldn't work in all areas.
Can anyone really say that the London Eye or the Old City Hall are in South London? Or Waterloo station for that matter?
Chelsea = North London, Putney = South London
Not by a long mile- or four/five miles as the case might be.
'South West' is the closest definitition... though its northern tip could almost pass off as Central London.
No, that's central London
Chelsea is north of the river and therefore it is North London. The river is the dividing line; it is as simple as that. And don't talk to me about SW postcodes; SW1 is further north than W6!
Well where else are they? Are you really saying that the South Bank isn't South?
No it isn't. Has this been written or made official somewhere?
Chelsea is not North London. Fulham is not North London.
Waterloo is not South London. The Old City Hall is not South London.
It's south of the river. But it's certainly north of South London.
Oh yes they are. (And it's County Hall... )
Of course it's South London. It's where all the commuter trains start from and commuter trains are South London's answer to the tube. Victoria Station and Charing Cross Station are South London enclaves.
look you fools - there are 2 levels of description here. the first, the meta-level shall we say, is simply about whether a place is north or south of the river.
the second, more detailed, level is whether something is west, east, etc in addition to its position north or south of the river.
chelsea is north of the river and in west london.
putney is south of the river and in west london.
battersea is south of the river and in south-west london.
camberwell is south of the river and in south london.
wandsworth is south of the river and in south-west london.
brixton is south of the river and in south london.
milwall is north of the river and in east london.
westminster is north of the river and in central london.
antarctica is north of the river and somewhat north of london.
hammersmith is north of the river and in west london.
chiswick is north of the river and in west london.
the london eye is south of the river and in central london.
the old city hall is south of the river and in central london.
waterloo station is south of the river and in central london.
the south bank is south of the river and in central london.
victoria station is north of the river and in central london.
charing cross station is north of the river and in central london.
The problem is the river - it don't go east-west all the way through London. Apart from it's twists and turns it does about as far as Lambeth/Westminster and then it takes a decidedly south-west direction. After Fulham it heads NORTH for a bit to Hammersmith and then from Chiswick it regains a south-west heading. BY the time it reaches Hampton it's WAY down into South-West London.
So if London (i.e. the City) is the centre, then North London and South London work OK defined by the river to the EAST but not so well the further WEST you go.
Your Hammersmiths, Fulhams, Chiswicks, Chelsea, etc. are all in West London and they are all south of an imaginary line drawn east-west through the City, so they are probably south-west London. In twenty seven years here I have never heard or seen any of them described seriously as either South or North London, with West or South-West always being used.
And as for Twickenham being so far out no one's interested ... bastards!
Even though they're north of the river?
Well they wouldn't be enclaves if they were South of the River would they!
That Wikipedia article shows that whatever the problems defining London geographically are nothing compared ith those Bengali vilagers living around the rather peculiar India Bangladesh border.
i still have got the hump that middlesex was done away with we never had a post code until they made ha (harrow).you can keep your greater london
Anything north of the river is north london, anything south is south. It really is as simple as that. It doesn't stop them being West or East too but you are talking absolute crap if you believe Waterloo is not in South London.
Separate names with a comma.